From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1651 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2003 10:31:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1639 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2003 10:31:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jul 2003 10:31:21 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h6VAV0Su028733; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:31:00 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h6VAUx2R028732; Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:30:59 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Cc: martin@MPA-Garching.MPG.DE, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: definition of "implicit" inline? References: <20030731101937.B257DF2E19@nile.gnat.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <20030731101937.B257DF2E19@nile.gnat.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg02294.txt.bz2 dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: | > Let's keep it simple and straight. The example you gave is just that | > of an inline function, not implicit inline function. There is nothing | > implicit about it. It is an alternate syntax for defining an inline | > function. Not a syntax for defining an implicit inline function. | | I find this exegesis confusing and self serving. No it is not exegis not confusing neither self servin, unless you don't know C++. | It seems quite fine to | refer to the form without inline has being implicitly inlined. Whether the | two forms should or should not be treated differently is another matter. In C++, they are no different. | One might ask *why* are there two forms. Perhaps someone should quote the | exact language from the standard here. I already give the reasons at multiple occasions in this debate with the appropriate quotes. The reason is mostly historic (see "The Design and Evolution of C++", section "Run-Time Efficiency"). When inlining was orginally introduced in C with Classes, the only syntax available was definition within the class declaration and inlining was considered only for member functions. Later, the keyword "inline" was introduced to permit inlining request for functions not defined within a class. There is no slight difference nor implication that one form is superior to the other in terms of request. -- Gaby